Mass shootings can't happen in Germany because of gun control.

[Al Swearegen]

How very condescending of you.

No. Odeon. It is me bowing out of an argument with someone I respect. After trying to see her point and show that I am prepared to even consider what she is saying and compromising my own position, but that I still believe what I believe and why, to have her come back nicely and say effectively "No, you are wrong" and expect to to re-explain myself is not going anywhere.

It is hampered by the fact that I do not know what she is hoping for EXCEPT for a complete capitulation and me saying "I was wrong" for her to put it to bed.

So I have done that for her. 

You may call that condescension. But let's be honest, you have been thinking and saying a LOT of really stupid shit in the last six months, so how much do I value your judgment of whether I am condescending or not and to whom?

[DirtDawg]

It was committed by furniture.  We know that furniture was the true threat. Ask Odeon. He will tell you.

The sarcasm is funny, but there is more to that statement than simple humor.


I Know I have missed a few things that have gone on here, but I have to ask you directly:
Why do you seem to be all over Odeon's lilly white arse like a hundred maggots in a bowl of sour rice, lately?

Give me a direction. What started this or, most importantly, what will it take to stop it?

I am not a mediator, but, fuck's sake, dude, get real. WTF is going on?

[Al Swearegen]

It was committed by furniture.  We know that furniture was the true threat. Ask Odeon. He will tell you.

The sarcasm is funny, but there is more to that statement than simple humor.


I Know I have missed a few things that have gone on here, but I have to ask you directly:
Why do you seem to be all over Odeon's lilly white arse like a hundred maggots in a bowl of sour rice, lately?

Give me a direction. What started this or, most importantly, what will it take to stop it?

I am not a mediator, but, fuck's sake, dude, get real. WTF is going on?

Its okay i do not need mediator or such, but more than happy to summarise it.
Basically Odeon did not like me fighting with Zegh. He decided to interject himself by make a series of comments about me being "intellectually dishonest". He was fishing for a reaction from me.
He has that reaction now.

I naturally called him out and he was unable to back anything he accused me of. He tried a few other slights and accusations about me since then. Recently adding "bigot" to the list. Again, he can not back that either. Instead he Tried the novel approach of being both condescending and doubling down on ridiculous claims instead of justifying them. Now though he decided to spice things up, he is both blatantly lying about what I said and trying to substitute positions that are easier to argue than the positions I HAVE argued. The old bait and switch. Caught him each time but the fact he tried it three or four times is telling enough.

Odeon obviously had some sort of appreciation as to what my reaction may be before he prodded me and so therefore he likely has a plan as to how to resolve things. I am reacting on Odeon. I see no reason to resolve anything. This is the result of his actions and he wanted this. He has it now. He is likely very happy with it.

[DirtDawg]

It was committed by furniture.  We know that furniture was the true threat. Ask Odeon. He will tell you.

The sarcasm is funny, but there is more to that statement than simple humor.


I Know I have missed a few things that have gone on here, but I have to ask you directly:
Why do you seem to be all over Odeon's lilly white arse like a hundred maggots in a bowl of sour rice, lately?

Give me a direction. What started this or, most importantly, what will it take to stop it?

I am not a mediator, but, fuck's sake, dude, get real. WTF is going on?

Its okay i do not need mediator or such, but more than happy to summarise it.
Basically Odeon did not like me fighting with Zegh. He decided to interject himself by make a series of comments about me being "intellectually dishonest". He was fishing for a reaction from me.
He has that reaction now.

I naturally called him out and he was unable to back anything he accused me of. He tried a few other slights and accusations about me since then. Recently adding "bigot" to the list. Again, he can not back that either. Instead he Tried the novel approach of being both condescending and doubling down on ridiculous claims instead of justifying them. Now though he decided to spice things up, he is both blatantly lying about what I said and trying to substitute positions that are easier to argue than the positions I HAVE argued. The old bait and switch. Caught him each time but the fact he tried it three or four times is telling enough.

Odeon obviously had some sort of appreciation as to what my reaction may be before he prodded me and so therefore he likely has a plan as to how to resolve things. I am reacting on Odeon. I see no reason to resolve anything. This is the result of his actions and he wanted this. He has it now. He is likely very happy with it.

Kind of sorry to read your surmise.

I like you both.
Without reading over one hundred pages of argumentative text that I have not even skimmed, I will have a hard time in coming to a conclusion on my own.

So, another point; why were you "fighting with Zegh" (spelling is not correct)?

Sorry to be an asshole but please give me a Cliff Notes version. I do understand that such shortcuts often lead one astray, but please try. I would like to understand ALL this or at least find a way to follow my instinct and avoid it.

[Al Swearegen]

It was committed by furniture.  We know that furniture was the true threat. Ask Odeon. He will tell you.

The sarcasm is funny, but there is more to that statement than simple humor.


I Know I have missed a few things that have gone on here, but I have to ask you directly:
Why do you seem to be all over Odeon's lilly white arse like a hundred maggots in a bowl of sour rice, lately?

Give me a direction. What started this or, most importantly, what will it take to stop it?

I am not a mediator, but, fuck's sake, dude, get real. WTF is going on?

Its okay i do not need mediator or such, but more than happy to summarise it.
Basically Odeon did not like me fighting with Zegh. He decided to interject himself by make a series of comments about me being "intellectually dishonest". He was fishing for a reaction from me.
He has that reaction now.

I naturally called him out and he was unable to back anything he accused me of. He tried a few other slights and accusations about me since then. Recently adding "bigot" to the list. Again, he can not back that either. Instead he Tried the novel approach of being both condescending and doubling down on ridiculous claims instead of justifying them. Now though he decided to spice things up, he is both blatantly lying about what I said and trying to substitute positions that are easier to argue than the positions I HAVE argued. The old bait and switch. Caught him each time but the fact he tried it three or four times is telling enough.

Odeon obviously had some sort of appreciation as to what my reaction may be before he prodded me and so therefore he likely has a plan as to how to resolve things. I am reacting on Odeon. I see no reason to resolve anything. This is the result of his actions and he wanted this. He has it now. He is likely very happy with it.

Kind of sorry to read your surmise.

I like you both.
Without reading over one hundred pages of argumentative text that I have not even skimmed, I will have a hard time in coming to a conclusion on my own.

So, another point; why were you "fighting with Zegh" (spelling is not correct)?

Sorry to be an asshole but please give me a Cliff Notes version. I do understand that such shortcuts often lead one astray, but please try. I would like to understand ALL this or at least find a way to follow my instinct and avoid it.

So long ago and he has not been on for a while. We have resolved things there in any case.

Basically Zegh and I had some difference about a couple of threads. One was on Feminism and the other on the Confederate Flag. I disagreed with him and he I and then he decided to up things and get personal with shots about my relationship with my ex-wife. I took the gloves off at that point and went at it with him.

Six months later he admitted he was in the wrong and said he did not want to carry things on a few months after that some pointed out that post and I said mea culpa.

Soon after he had a to do with Scrap and made some personal attacks on him and bailed.

[odeon]

How very condescending of you.

No. Odeon. It is me bowing out of an argument with someone I respect. After trying to see her point and show that I am prepared to even consider what she is saying and compromising my own position, but that I still believe what I believe and why, to have her come back nicely and say effectively "No, you are wrong" and expect to to re-explain myself is not going anywhere.

It is hampered by the fact that I do not know what she is hoping for EXCEPT for a complete capitulation and me saying "I was wrong" for her to put it to bed.

So I have done that for her. 

You may call that condescension. But let's be honest, you have been thinking and saying a LOT of really stupid shit in the last six months, so how much do I value your judgment of whether I am condescending or not and to whom?

I have not. Your opinion differs from mine and I think it would be prudent of you to accept that.

Your many posts to back up your opinions were just that. Opinions. What normally happens with callouts here is that sooner or later, the peanut gallery will judge. In this case it din't, because--and let's be honest here--they are bored to death by our posts. I would like to say it's your posts, but that's probably not true. It's us both. So you keep thinking that you can somehow convince me. Or lately, calling me stuff since that former thing clearly didn't work. I don't mind a flame war but I have been hesitant to engage in one because I did consider you a friend. I still hesitate. My fingers itch at times, but I don't want to, not really.

And yes, I will call that condescension because that is how I read it. Again, it is an opinion, but I've had the opportunity to observe your behaviour and I think varies greatly depending on whom you are addressing. Your good book receives a wholly different treatment from your bad one.

In this case, you are being condescending and evasive. I'm betting that it is indeed dependent on whom you are addressing. You are pissed off still, and you are letting it show. It sort of reminds me of you and DFG, in a way.

And this is how I perceive you, lately. Would you have liked me to lie?

[Al Swearegen]

How very condescending of you.

No. Odeon. It is me bowing out of an argument with someone I respect. After trying to see her point and show that I am prepared to even consider what she is saying and compromising my own position, but that I still believe what I believe and why, to have her come back nicely and say effectively "No, you are wrong" and expect to to re-explain myself is not going anywhere.

It is hampered by the fact that I do not know what she is hoping for EXCEPT for a complete capitulation and me saying "I was wrong" for her to put it to bed.

So I have done that for her. 

You may call that condescension. But let's be honest, you have been thinking and saying a LOT of really stupid shit in the last six months, so how much do I value your judgment of whether I am condescending or not and to whom?

I have not. Your opinion differs from mine and I think it would be prudent of you to accept that.

Your many posts to back up your opinions were just that. Opinions. What normally happens with callouts here is that sooner or later, the peanut gallery will judge. In this case it din't, because--and let's be honest here--they are bored to death by our posts. I would like to say it's your posts, but that's probably not true. It's us both. So you keep thinking that you can somehow convince me. Or lately, calling me stuff since that former thing clearly didn't work. I don't mind a flame war but I have been hesitant to engage in one because I did consider you a friend. I still hesitate. My fingers itch at times, but I don't want to, not really.

And yes, I will call that condescension because that is how I read it. Again, it is an opinion, but I've had the opportunity to observe your behaviour and I think varies greatly depending on whom you are addressing. Your good book receives a wholly different treatment from your bad one.

In this case, you are being condescending and evasive. I'm betting that it is indeed dependent on whom you are addressing. You are pissed off still, and you are letting it show. It sort of reminds me of you and DFG, in a way.

And this is how I perceive you, lately. Would you have liked me to lie?

I do not really care overly what you consider prudent or not. As for what is your opinion or not, being that I have seen both many provable lies and provable bait and switches, putting everything you say down to opinions....not feeling it.

I actually agree that the gallery is bored to death by our postings but then I am not posting necessarily for their judgment so I do not care much. I do not care to convince you and if you wish to flame me, you can. You bring this up every so often and my response is the same. Do what you will. I am not stopping you. I neither fear nor welcome you flaming me. I don't much care either way. If you believe it is a threat or something that concerns me, it really doesn't.

No it is not condescension nor evasive. I am being firm and making the wanted capitulation and explaining why. I had tried to compromise and say that it was not that interested and why I had thought what I thought and clearly this was not enough for Hyke she wanted press it and dispute everything I said each time I said it. I was not that invested in this monster.

How this becomes evasive is completely beyond me and I do not believe it is condescending either. Not that it was to you in any case.

As to whether I want you to lie? What, again? Can if you like. I will likely pick it up again and expose it again. Just like the lies in my signature.

You do what you do, I am not beholden to you nor you to me. No idea why you are asking for my opinion on how I think you should treat me at this juncture?

[odeon]

Here's the thing: you haven't proved anything. I have to admit, I am ever so slightly offended by you continuing to say that I have lied or baited you. I have not, other than in obviously trollish purposes (I trust you to see the difference, but maybe you can't).

But fine. Let's just do this. Fucking idiot.,

[Al Swearegen]

Here's the thing: you haven't proved anything. I have to admit, I am ever so slightly offended by you continuing to say that I have lied or baited you. I have not, other than in obviously trollish purposes (I trust you to see the difference, but maybe you can't).

But fine. Let's just do this. Fucking idiot.,

LYING
Sometimes we simply hold differing opinions - not necessarily "wrong". 

But then they are lies. It is usually found in arguments where the position of the liar is weak and needs padding

As with Odeon

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23727.msg1120387.html#msg1120387

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23712.msg1120296.html#msg1120296

http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,23716.msg1122811.html#msg1122811

Switch and baiting

I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help.

I don't blame Muslims though and YOU know I don't blame Muslims. I told you already, I am not playing bait and switch with you Odeon. I blame radicalised Muslim Extremists. That is NOT Muslims.
It is people with a completely different mentality. In the same way a moderate weekly church going Christian is hardly the same as Westboro Baptists. But you know that already, right?

Its weak to keep trying for this bait and switch isn't it , Odeon? Yup, I thought so too.

In fact, you still have to present proof for a ban to work. Any proof. Numbers, ideas, anything...? Don't be shy.

Do I have to present proof of a ban to work? I do not think I suggested a ban? I thought I simply supported in principle a temporary freeze whilst vetting procedures are improved?

What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid.

I do not give a damn about that position. I never suggested nor argued that position and I do not care to start.
Oh I know this is another bait and switch tactic.
Banning Muslims at the US borders is the Trump suggestion or policy on his website or campaign book that he made (that I vouched no opinion on) after suggesting his idea (that I happened to agree in principle with) about placing a temporary freeze on US Muslim immigrants whilst he fixes the subpar vetting systems used to vet radicalised Muslim extremists from Moderate Muslim immigrants.

I also know that YOU know which is and is not my position. You are both being an idiot and dishonest. Why? 

Here is more lying....yay!!!

It is, however, bigoted to blame the religion for the actions of a few, and while you might not like being called a bigot, it's well within the definition.

I have blamed the religion for the actions of a few have I? Odeon why are you lying again? Care to show where I have said that I blame the entire religion for the actions of a few? I know you can't, just as you have. In fact I have gone out of my way to be absolutely crystal clear that I distinguish Moderate Muslims from radicalised Muslim extremists and have never blamed one for the other.

So you are down to straight out lying.

Why are you lying. Odeon? Why aren't you backing yourself instead?

AND

You say the FBI are monitoring a thousand (you started with 900 but whatever) potential groups or individuals.

Okay are you a liar?

Straight up. You just said that I stated "FBI are monitoring a thousand" That is YOUR words quoted above. That is what you said that I said.

Yup, and if we tack this on to the nearly 1000 US based Islamic extremist cases that are currently active investigations and the fact that both Omar Mateen and the San Bernadino whilst referred and investigated were ultimately dropped as active cases for investigation....yes they definitely need an overhaul......

Look at what is bolded above. DID I say the FBI is monitoring nearly 1000 US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases or that they are monitoring a thousand? Its one or the other.

Okay so how many exactly? Well Director Comey said 900 active US based radicalised Islamic extremist cases. So is 900 cases NEARLY 1000? YES. Is it ACTUALLY 1000? No.

So let's discuss why you just lied. Is your argument THAT weak you have to rely on lies and switch and bait attempts to give it legs? (Rhetorical question, obviously)

AND

How many nutcases with guns do you suppose they are they missing out on? Nationals who can buy the equipment they need legally and then kill gays, police officers or just some kids and teachers at a school? Remind me, how many gun-related homicides are there in the US every year?

900? 1000?

And none of the above means "ignore the radicalised nutcases". It means "don't be a stupid bigoted idiot, try something that can actually make a difference."

This is nothing to do with agreeing in principle with the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration whilst the vetting system to distinguish between moderate Muslim and radicalised Muslim extremist is introduced.

Nothing AT ALL. You get that. There is nothing to suggest that the gun laws you believe may have a hope in Hell of getting introduced will stop radical Muslim extremists from committing these horribly destructive acts as seen in the examples I quoted already. 

You can get as offended as you like. Probably better not lying or bait and switching in the first place than risk doing so, being callout on it and then allowing yourself to get offended.

Cause and effect. You help choose the conclusion. You have agency.

[odeon]

I have not lied, nor did I any bait and switch, whatever that is in this context.

My opinions differ from yours, though, and they differ a lot. You may not like that I called you a bigot or that I demanded you to prove that a ban on Muslims would help anything, but it goes with the territory. You support it, therefore you need to explain what it does and how. I don't give a shit if it offends you to be called a bigot or if you have a Muslim friend (what a fucking pathetic excuse), you need to be able to explain the views you support.

Or accept that you are, in fact, a bigot. There is not a shred of proof for the bigotry you advocate but plenty of proof and precedent to suggest the opposite.

[Al Swearegen]

I have not lied, nor did I any bait and switch, whatever that is in this context.

My opinions differ from yours, though, and they differ a lot. You may not like that I called you a bigot or that I demanded you to prove that a ban on Muslims would help anything, but it goes with the territory. You support it, therefore you need to explain what it does and how. I don't give a shit if it offends you to be called a bigot or if you have a Muslim friend (what a fucking pathetic excuse), you need to be able to explain the views you support.

Or accept that you are, in fact, a bigot. There is not a shred of proof for the bigotry you advocate but plenty of proof and precedent to suggest the opposite.

Whilst I am not a bigot, you are either an idiot or a liar. I am sorry but the option to simply have misunderstood or been ignorant, has stopped being an option.

"I did not bait and switch and I did not lie" as a retort to my showing you evidence of doing exactly that, is not a winning argument. Worse still, because I spelled it out, you can't state you are unaware of what I mean.

It does imply a few things.  If you went to the efforts to try and replace my argument for other arguments, that you must see how pass weak your positions are. Resorting to lies and misrepresentations.

It also implies that you are unlikely to be able to either contest anything I have said nor support anything you have said.  Flaming, denials and unfounded and unsupported accusations are all the is it in intellectual arsenal.

It also shows to me you are unable to look at things objectively.

You think I am offended by you? God, why? What do you consider offensive about you? Do you have ANYTHING remotely rational to contribute?

[Al Swearegen]

I have not lied, nor did I any bait and switch, whatever that is in this context.

My opinions differ from yours, though, and they differ a lot. You may not like that I called you a bigot or that I demanded you to prove that a ban on Muslims would help anything, but it goes with the territory. You support it, therefore you need to explain what it does and how. I don't give a shit if it offends you to be called a bigot or if you have a Muslim friend (what a fucking pathetic excuse), you need to be able to explain the views you support.

Or accept that you are, in fact, a bigot. There is not a shred of proof for the bigotry you advocate but plenty of proof and precedent to suggest the opposite.

You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders:

THIS is a lie. The reason it is a lie is because I never had that position. I never supported it. So when you say "You singled out Muslims as a group, every single Muslim who arrives at the US borders" and it is provably untrue, then you are a liar. Its a false accusation and pretty fucking simple.

And now, in this latest marvel of yours, you are comparing Muslims to Ebola in a nice roundabout way. That's right, isn't it? It's what you are saying.

No, under no honest reading could this assessment be made.
I said a disease "like Ebola". So from the outset it is not Ebola. I compared the disease to the ideology NOT people NOR the religion. I compared radical Muslim extremists to people infected by the ideology and Moderate Muslims as being healthy.
Nowhere did I compare Ebola with Muslims. So you lied again.

It is, however, bigoted to blame the religion for the actions of a few, and while you might not like being called a bigot, it's well within the definition.

Where did I blame the religion for the actions of a few? Oh that's right.....NOWHERE. You lied again. This is the problem. I know it would be a whole lot easier for you if I actually did, but pretending I did and criticising for doing what I did not do, is lying by default. That does not reflect on my conduct, just yours.

You say the FBI are monitoring a thousand (you started with 900 but whatever) potential groups or individuals.

Helps if I do not have what I ACTUALLY said:

Yup, and if we tack this on to the nearly 1000 US based Islamic extremist cases that are currently active investigations and the fact that both Omar Mateen and the San Bernadino whilst referred and investigated were ultimately dropped as active cases for investigation....yes they definitely need an overhaul......

Did I say 1000 or did I say nearly 1000? Is 900 nearly 1000? Yes. Is 900 actually 1000? No. Who lied.....again.

So do not for a moment say you have not lied. You have and you do.

But what about those bait and switch arguments? Those attempts to switch more difficult positions I took with easier to defend positions that I did not make?

I'm sure blaming Muslims will sway the idiots, just as blaming Jews did a couple of years ago and still does, but it wouldn't help.

Did I blame Muslims? Did I blame radicalised Muslim extremists? Do I blame Christians for picketing Funerals of American soldiers killed overseas OR the Westboro Baptists? Do I make the distinctions? Do I say that they share the same ideology?

Again...did I blame "the Muslims"? No, and it is dishonest every time you say so.

What I have been saying is that banning Muslims at the US borders is stupid, bigoted and ineffective. I'm saying now as I have been saying all along that blaming 22% of the world'd population for the actions of a few fanatics is bigoted, counterproductive and stupid.

I never had that position. My position was placing a freeze on Muslim immigrants. That was the initial position with Donald Trump. The newer position you try to replace with the one I actually agree with, I have not got an opinion on. I let you know first time you try to say I "had his position wrong". I will not consider or argue his newer position about banning all Muslims from the US border or whatever it is. I don't give a damn about it. I sure as fuck won't have you try to bait and switch it and pretend it is my position to defend. It isn't, never was, and you know that.

So don't pretend you don't lie nor bait and switch. You do. Its dishonest, blatant and piss weak. I know you do this because you want me to be a bigot and you want your positions to be stronger. But they aren't and my positions aren't bigoted. You are just piss weak and emotional. That is why you lie and bait and switch. Its all you have.

[odeon]

<snip>

Okay so logically we need to explore the possibility the maybe the FBI is battling to contain such problems in US. Certainly the fact that they questioned Mateen twice and also that they have 900 active US based investigations supports this.....logically.

<snip>

You support Trump and Trump advocates banning *all* Muslims at the border, a view that is bigoted to say the least. Ergo, you are a bigot. You can't support a bigot's bigoted views without being a bigot yourself.

You have yet to give any kind of indication of how this would help anything. I'm waiting but not holding my breath.

"A disease like Ebola" is splitting hairs, which you know perfectly well. I very much doubt anyone who reads that particular post will miss your intent. Because you also advocate banning Muslims at the borders until the FBI figures it out, it follows that it's the kind of disease control you suggest in your piss-poor hypothetical.

You really need to stay away from the hypotheticals. They make you look stupid. Not that it's not true but you might want to avoid making it so obvious.

Oh, and from the above it also follows what and whom you blame. You're not saying it out loud because that would be so obviously bigoted that even you couldn't weasel your way out of it but considering what you support and why, and adding the Ebola hypothetical, well...

And Trump's *initial* position was this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-responds-to-criticism-over-banning-muslims-from-us-i-dont-care-a6764291.html

[Al Swearegen]

<snip>

Okay so logically we need to explore the possibility the maybe the FBI is battling to contain such problems in US. Certainly the fact that they questioned Mateen twice and also that they have 900 active US based investigations supports this.....logically.

<snip>

You support Trump and Trump advocates banning *all* Muslims at the border, a view that is bigoted to say the least. Ergo, you are a bigot. You can't support a bigot's bigoted views without being a bigot yourself.

You have yet to give any kind of indication of how this would help anything. I'm waiting but not holding my breath.

"A disease like Ebola" is splitting hairs, which you know perfectly well. I very much doubt anyone who reads that particular post will miss your intent. Because you also advocate banning Muslims at the borders until the FBI figures it out, it follows that it's the kind of disease control you suggest in your piss-poor hypothetical.

You really need to stay away from the hypotheticals. They make you look stupid. Not that it's not true but you might want to avoid making it so obvious.

Oh, and from the above it also follows what and whom you blame. You're not saying it out loud because that would be so obviously bigoted that even you couldn't weasel your way out of it but considering what you support and why, and adding the Ebola hypothetical, well...

And Trump's *initial* position was this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-responds-to-criticism-over-banning-muslims-from-us-i-dont-care-a6764291.html

No, you silly fucker.

You support Trump and Trump advocates banning *all* Muslims at the border, a view that is bigoted to say the least. Ergo, you are a bigot. You can't support a bigot's bigoted views without being a bigot yourself.

Are you trying to tell me what I believe?
No it is OBVIOUSLY a bit of a problem when I have never said that I support banning all Muslims at the border. It is more of a problem when I have stated exactly what I was supporting in principle. Especially when what you WANT me to support, I don't and will not endorse for your benefit.

Now there is about two options, either I have had it wrong all along and Donald trump never had that position, in which case the position you want me to support is different to any position I have apparently wrongly attributed to him (in which case I have not endorsed the position of banning all Muslims at the borders) OR I am right and it is a previous position he has had (in which case I have not endorsed the position of banning all Muslims at the borders).

There is no third option. The "you may have been ignorant in what I meant" option has left the station.

So which was it of those two options? Well as listed above the result doesn't matter. It still doesn't have me backing the position you WANT me to back. "You support Trump and Trump advocates banning *all* Muslims at the border"

So as YOU made that claim, YOU get to back that claim.

As whether I misunderstood or misheard what Trump said, its a possibility. Maybe instead of relying on media. Maybe it is best understanding that I know what I think or believe is what I think or believe and trying to tell me what I believe based on fuck all is fucking idiotic.

Then again maybe instead of asking a UK media publication asking his National Media Spokesperson,
may be a better idea (She mentions the stance at that time from 1:58 - 2:48)

So listening to her and seeing what I had been agreeing in principle with sounds closer to exactly what I fucking said and nothing like what YOU fucking said I supported.

Interesting, huh? Kind of like you are completely full of shit, huh?

"B....b....b....but a UK paper said..."

And Trump's *initial* position was this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-responds-to-criticism-over-banning-muslims-from-us-i-dont-care-a6764291.html

There is a reason they write something untrue about Trump and most rational people understand that the media is not exactly doing Trump favours. In fact the Press is actively trying to make Hillary look as close to human as they can make her and Trump look like the devil.

Tell him ex-Democrat political strategist, Pat Candell

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/08/01/pat-caddell-on-cooked-reuters-poll-never-in-my-life-have-i-seen-a-news-organization-do-something-so-dishonest/

So what else?

You support Trump and Trump advocates.....

How the hell can anyone even consider voting for Trump?

I am glad I am not in America. Who are in the running Socialist Sanders? No thanks. What about Hillary? Nope. She is at LEAST on par with....Trump. Trump is a moron.

So Marco Rubio? Ted Cruz? Ugh!

Trump is a blowhard, arrogant, boorish, entitled, opinionated, idiot who gambles with his and other people's money and is happy to risk a company or personal bankrupt, he is VERY unsuited to being a President.

HOWEVER

Hilary is worse



Liar.



Criminal



Corrupt



Personal emails for state business?

Trump is awful. Hilary is evil.

I support Trump? Interesting point of view.

Next!

You can't support a bigot's bigoted views without being a bigot yourself

No shit! Have you made a point? No you haven't. Why not? You have not identified any bigoted point of view that I ACTUALLY hold and tell me why it IS bigoted. You have not identified who I am bigoted towards and where I have said bigoted things to them. I CAN hold any position with any bigot IF it is NOT bigoted and not be a bigot.
If I share a love of painting like Adolf Hitler did and NOT be a bigot. I could even agree with his determination on the merits of different artist styles. That won't make me a bigot.

You have yet to give any kind of indication of how this would help anything. I'm waiting but not holding my breath.

Why would I need to point this out. I agree with the idea in principle. Its not my idea. It would be up to the originator and his cronies to develop it into a fully developed strategic plan and then I will review it and see whether I think it will work or whether it is better or worse than the simple idea that I DID agree in principle with.

You are asking the wrong question from the wrong person. I told you this many times already, and as I said, you cannot feign ignorance any more. That train has left the station. You are either dishonest or stupid.

"A disease like Ebola" is splitting hairs, which you know perfectly well. I very much doubt anyone who reads that particular post will miss your intent. Because you also advocate banning Muslims at the borders until the FBI figures it out, it follows that it's the kind of disease control you suggest in your piss-poor hypothetical.

Repeating a lie is not making it any more true. Because "I advocate Banning Muslims at the border" OR do I support in principle the idea of placing a temporary freeze on Muslim immigration to US"? Two different positions. One I have supported in principle and the other I have not. More bait and switch, huh? What exactly is the "kind of disease control"? Be specific.

I have made very clear in this analogy (and we KNOW that analogies are not comparable in every conceivable way but rather, in a specific and narrow sense. An analogy does NOT say "x is like y in every way" or "x is y" it says "x is like y in z way". Trying to find other ways apart from z to show x is not like y at all is disingenuous and comes either from a position of stupidity or dishonesty) that the threat of the Ebola like disease in this analogy is LIKE the the threat of the radical Muslim extremist ideology. I have not said it is like Ebola nor have I compared Muslims to Ebola and only an idiot would think so.

I do not need to avoid hypotheticals. My hypotheticals are fine.

Oh, and from the above it also follows what and whom you blame. You're not saying it out loud because that would be so obviously bigoted that even you couldn't weasel your way out of it but considering what you support and why, and adding the Ebola hypothetical, well...

Its pretty fucking clear from everything I have posted, who I blame. Radical Muslim Extremists. I have posted this a lot. An awful lot. Would you like me to pull quotes of how many times I have blamed them? Of course it is fucking clear.

I know that does not work with your narrative and you would prefer for me to blame someone else, for me to be the bigot you desperately want to promote me as.

Here is your chance - BACK YOURSELF - show where I have been bigoted to any group. class, race or gender. No more evading. Back yourself. No "Well I read this in this disingenuous way so as to infer the opposite to what you have said..."

No, you made the claim. It was a big claim. You doubled down. You have lied consistently and tried to bait and switch in order to replace positions I hold with other positions I do not hold, in order to defend positions you feel are stronger.

Enough bullshit. Back yourself Odeon. For once. You called me a bigot, back yourself......or admit the lie.

[odeon]

Supporting a bigot makes you a bigot. Told you so. Do you have problems following me? Should I use smaller words?

It's interesting that your whole proof of *not* being a bigot seems to be that only the Muslim immigrants would be banned. In what world is that less bigoted? The same where I would willingly watch through your silly videos when this discussion was never about Hillary? There is no proof whatsoever that banning Muslims, all of them or immigrants, would help anything except making Muslims in the US and abroad angrier than they already are.

You are what you are.